Calvanism Application

[Me4Him]

God made my kitchen table? Is that what you're saying?

Lu 22:30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom,

That God made the rules of baseball?

I don't understand.

I don't think God plays "games". :laugh:

 

[here now]

God "elects" to save any/all who will yield to God, rather than trying to their own God, over their own life.

Everyone is "Equal" under the law, the reason "lady Justice" wears a "blindfold".

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/163/415093674_edddb13446.jpg?v=0

A Judge can not, by his own prerogative, give "Pardons" to some while withholding the same pardons from others.

There must be a "point of law" to "Justify" the separation of those pardons from those not pardons.

Faith/Belief equals wages of sin paid, not under the law,

Unbelief equals wages unpaid, still under the law.

Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already,

because (point of law)

he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

You'll have to understand the "Judicial system" to understand the "plan of salvation".

Me4 Him, Are you speaking of the USA's judicial system?

 

[Jarthur001]

Whatever the source, one of the refreshing things about Spurgeon was that he didn't play these silly little games over words. He was a five point Calvinist because he saw it in Scripture, and he was intensely evangelistic because he saw it in Scripture.

I have long contended, and with good reason, that it is the non-Calvinists who are driven by logic and insist in putting God in a box of their own understanding. They claim that God as he has revealed himself can't be a God of love though God has plainly declared his love and his election. They claim it can't be grace. They claim he makes robots because they cant' figure something out.

We would be better served simply to let the Scriptures say what they say rather than trying to force them from either end.

Yes..

I have seen this misleading many times before. I'm not sure who they hope to fool. I asked for the source only to see how bad one will go. No one can deny the man was a 5 pointer, but some like to play silly games.

 

[Jarthur001]

Is God bound to 2009? Omnipresence by definition is being in all places at once...time included or He is not truly omnipresent.

Let me ask again. Can God go back in time to the year 1960?

yes or no will be fine.

or if you want...dodge what was asked.

 

[Jarthur001]

Actually, he believed that there is truth in both camps. He was a 5 point calvinist but he also believed in man's free will.

You quoted..

That God predestines, and yet that man is responsible, are two facts that few can see clearly. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one part of the Bible that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find, in another Scripture, that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is only my folly that leads me to imagine that these two truths can ever contradict each other.

man is responsible is what all Calvinist believe and is not the same as freewill.

 

[Jarthur001]

God in His sovereignty is not limited by our finite mind.

so...can God go back to the year 1960? Its very easy to answer. Yes or no.

 

[annsni]

You quoted..

man is responsible is what all Calvinist believe and is not the same as freewill.

However, see what he says just before the section of the quote you posted:

For instance, I read in one Book of the Bible, "The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." Yet I am taught, in another part of the same inspired Word, that "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." I see, in one place, God in providence presiding over all, and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions, in a great measure, to his own free-will. Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act that there was no control of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to atheism; and if, on the other hand, I should declare that God so over-rules all things that man is not free enough to be responsible, I should be driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism.

He IS speaking of free will.

 

[Jarthur001]

However, see what he says just before the section of the quote you posted:



He IS speaking of free will.

I would just see this as a poor choice of words. I could very easy say the very same thing, but leave on "free" from will.

However, I'm not here to defend every word the Spurgeon said. I have a hard enough time defending my own words. But at the same time it is unfair for others to abuse his words. Some do this with no shame, in the name of Christ. And its nothing but deceit.

Here you post his words and I believe you. Some I always need to check because of that shameless deceit.

 

[webdog]

Let me ask again. Can God go back in time to the year 1960?

yes or no will be fine.

or if you want...dodge what was asked.

I see you have a hard time comprehending, either by choice or ignorance.

If God exists in 1960 and 2009 at the same time, how can He "go back" to 1960? It seems you have God bound by time in your model.

We've been over this before, though

 

[GordonSlocum]

Before I answer, i want to as...what do you believe? The reason why I ask now, is that I seem to be seeing something over the last two threads we need to address before we go on.

Please state your doctrine of salvation to which you hold.

.
Have not read of the post after this one yet, but wll look at some of them
1. I am not a Calvinist
2. I am not an Arminian

3. Tulip as I see it:

A. Total Inability or Total Depravity - I do not accept total inability as the definition of total depravity. Man is depraved but I would not use the word Total. He is dead in sins and trespasses and he is not looking for God true but this does not render him incapable of receiving Christ.

B. Unconditional Election - Election is conditional as I see it. Man hears the gospel and is convicted and them must accept or reject the gospel.

C. Particular Redemption or Limited Atonement: Unlimited atonement but limited in application which is based upon those who receive Christ.

D. The efficacious call of the Spirit or Irresistible Grace - Grace is and can be resisted

E. Perseverance of the Saints - Depending on the definition. I have see some I agree with and others I don't agree with. Simply I believe in once saved always saved.

 

[Amy.G]

so...can God go back to the year 1960? Its very easy to answer. Yes or no.

That is a very strange question.

God doesn't go backward or forward in time. He is omnipresent and omniscient. He sees everything all at once.

 

[gb93433]

so...can God go back to the year 1960? Its very easy to answer. Yes or no.

What is time? When you answer that question then you will be able to answer your own question.

I am waiting for one correct interpretation from any calvinist of Amos 3:6, Is. 45; and Lam 3:38. Is it possible that they are unableto because their rationalistic theology does not coincide with what scripture directly teaches? Is it true that their view of God's sovereignty is limited to less than what scripture actually teaches?

 

[GordonSlocum]

Whatever the source, one of the refreshing things about Spurgeon was that he didn't play these silly little games over words. He was a five point Calvinist because he saw it in Scripture, and he was intensely evangelistic because he saw it in Scripture.

I have long contended, and with good reason, that it is the non-Calvinists who are driven by logic and insist in putting God in a box of their own understanding. They claim that God as he has revealed himself can't be a God of love though God has plainly declared his love and his election. They claim it can't be grace. They claim he makes robots because they cant' figure something out.

We would be better served simply to let the Scriptures say what they say rather than trying to force them from either end.

Well that is hardly anywhere close to the truth.

Calvinist consistently redefine "ALL" and "World"

Calvinism is situational not Scriptural.

Calvinist force God to violate His own Holiness.

Calvinist refuses to accept God's foreknowledge by redefining it.

Calvinist refuse to accept R11:32

Calvinist refuse to accept J1:9

Calvinist refuse to accept I T2:4

Calvinist refuse to accept 2P3:9

and others. Don't worry PL I have heard all the twist of these verses by the Calvinist. Nothing new under the sun and your Calvinism is as you have labeled non Calvinist is more or less words - simply butting God in a box. Calvinist forces man's view on God's word.

 

[gb93433]

Calvinist consistently redefine "ALL" and "World"
Calvinism is situational not Scriptural.

Wait until one of them interprets Amos 3:6, Is. 45:7, and Lam. 3:38 then you will see convenient situational theology.

 

[Me4Him]

Me4 Him, Are you speaking of the USA's judicial system?

I'm speaking of the principles/precepts of law, no matter the country.

Ro 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

The principles/precepts of "law/justice" are based on biblical principles/precepts.

 

[Me4Him]

That God predestines, and yet that man is responsible, are two facts that few can see clearly. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one part of the Bible that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find, in another Scripture, that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is only my folly that leads me to imagine that these two truths can ever contradict each other.

When you possses "Foreknowledge" of choices people will make, it's no problem to make "plans" within the parameters of that foreknowledge without having to "predestine" those choices.

Those you "foreknow" will chose salvation can be used to "preach the Gospel",

Those you "foreknow" who will reject the gospel, can be used as an example of God's wrath.

One of the concepts many people find hard to believe is that the future is not set in stone, it can be changed.

God repeatly warned Israel to turn from their wickness and he would turn from his wrath, so Israel's future was determined by their choice, not God's.

And the same choice is our's today.

""Predestination/Sovereign will" can't be used to describe the plan of salvation, God not willing any perish, yet many do, clearly contradicts any predestination by Sovereign will.

With "foreknowledge", man is free to make his choice, God can know what is going to occur and still say to man it occurred because of man's will, not mine.

Foreknowledge can't be defined/interpreted as predestination or Sovereign will,

I think that is the problem.

 

[Tom Butler]

Isaiah 6 records an interesting conversation between God and Isaiah. God instructs Isaiah to prophesy to the nation, to warn them of judgment and call them to repentance. Isaiah accepts the call.

Then God tells Isaiah, they're not going to listen. And the reason they're not going to listen is that I have blinded their eyes and clouded their understanding.

This is confirmed is John 12:40, where John quotes the Isaiah passage in connection with Israel's unbelief in the Messiah. John said they could not believe because (now quoting God from Isaiah 6) "I have blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, that they should not see with their eyes or understand with their heart and be converted, and I should heal them."

Recall that by the 53rd chapter, isaiah is complaining, "Who has believed our report?" Which is another way of saying, nobody believes what I'm preaching.

I wonder how many preachers would surrender to God's call if God told them, I want you to preach, but nobody will ever be saved under your preaching. They won't, because I've fixed it so they can't.

John 12:40 is troubling. But there is another soteriological truth there. It is that no one will be saved unless God opens their eyes, changes their heart, and opens their understanding. That God does this for anyone is true salvation by grace.

 

[GordonSlocum]

That is a very strange question.

God doesn't go backward or forward in time. He is omnipresent and omniscient. He sees everything all at once.

The words I use that describe what you are saying is "eternal now" with respect to his omniscience “absolute knowledge” for us foreknowledge because we live in time and space.

There is no north, south, east, west, up, down, before, after, with God. He sees all at once. It is a truth that is humbling when we ponder it.

Here is a question that is rather interesting: How does God have a thought that He never knew? Is this possible?

Perhaps one of the major dividing lines between reform theology and my personal view and many others for that matter is that Calvinist see a decision made by God to save a few then acts to save them. However, as I see it, God does act to save but on the basis of his Absolute Knowledge, to us foreknowledge.

On their side man has no ability to respond to the Gospel therefore God must regenerate / give new birth first so that the sinner may be alive so that now he can believe by a so called special infused gift of faith and that this faith is what hears the irresistible call of God that draws them at which point they repent and are resaved or born a gain. (To me total none sense)

The Bible does not teach this outline. In fact repeatedly Jesus made comments that “their”, “his”, “your” faith has made you well, whole, saved, not some before hand zapped infusing of new birth so that now that they are born from above they can now become twice born from above.

We are told to repent, have faith or believe and then receive salvation. Calvinist reverses the process.

Calvinist replaces the term conviction to regeneration another replacement tactic to confuse Christians.

The Biblical process toward salvation is simple and clearly taught in Scripture:

1. Hear God’s message
2. The Holy Spirit uses the message to convict the sinners
3. Sinner man receives or rejects the truth. Several parables illustrate the different levels of rejection of truth. These different type soils did understand the truth but still held on to the world and did not come to surrender to Christ. {This is one of the key points that nail’s Calvinism to the wall of false teaching.}
4. For the sinner man that repents and believes this sinner man is saved (new birth, born from above, conversion, salvation, regeneration are all used to describe that moment God gives sinner man a new heart. Also, at the same time sinner man is adopted, positionally sanctified, receives the Holy Spirit, and justified. These all happen at one and the same moment. Just because we are forced to write them in sequence does not mean they happen in sequence.

 

[GordonSlocum]

Isaiah 6 records an interesting conversation between God and Isaiah. God instructs Isaiah to prophesy to the nation, to warn them of judgment and call them to repentance. Isaiah accepts the call.

Then God tells Isaiah, they're not going to listen. And the reason they're not going to listen is that I have blinded their eyes and clouded their understanding.

This is confirmed is John 12:40, where John quotes the Isaiah passage in connection with Israel's unbelief in the Messiah. John said they could not believe because (now quoting God from Isaiah 6) "I have blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, that they should not see with their eyes or understand with their heart and be converted, and I should heal them."

Recall that by the 53rd chapter, isaiah is complaining, "Who has believed our report?" Which is another way of saying, nobody believes what I'm preaching.

I wonder how many preachers would surrender to God's call if God told them, I want you to preach, but nobody will ever be saved under your preaching. They won't, because I've fixed it so they can't.

John 12:40 is troubling. But there is another soteriological truth there. It is that no one will be saved unless God opens their eyes, changes their heart, and opens their understanding. That God does this for anyone is true salvation by grace.

These passages are exactly what they say, but and a big but, you fail to tell the full story. This message came at a time when the Jews had wondered so far from God that they were given over to their sin. This was a process not just a moment of outright from holiness to ungodliness zapping of blindness.

John also said that “as many as received him” to the same crowd. Let look at this and consider the context, because it clearly the opposite from your view.


1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2. He was in the beginning with God.
3. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
4. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
5. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
The Witness John
6. There came a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7. He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. (so that all might believe) [This statement teaches some will and some will not of all that are in darkness - oh but you have your twist on this too instead of just accepting the clear plane truth]
8. He was not the Light, but {he came} to testify about the Light.
9. There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. (enlightens those that do not believe and those that do as indicated in verse 7)
10. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
11. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. (The Jews but read the next verse)
12. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, {even} to those who believe in His name, (many Jews did believe, not because they are forced to by John Calvin and his followers but because they did so freely)

The problem with Calvinist is that they take the normal understanding and twist it to mean what they perceive it to say to reinforce their situational theology.

The scripture you quoted has a history behind it and you failed to explain it. The place where the Jews at that time were at did not happen over night. The state of the Jews in Christ earthly ministry was compared to that of some of the OT periods where backsliding reached extreme sinfulness and rebellion. You simply have the cart pulling the horse.

But you too have an answer for all this by avoiding the truth you will find another verse and do the same to it that you have to these.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It all depends on how you read him. Most would claim he held to double predestinarian. However, its not the same double predestinarian that we hear today.

RC Sproul....


I like this by Luther..

So you're claiming that he (at least Luther) is Passive Reprobation. That the Nature began as sin and thus God does nothing to begin with to change mans condition save for the elect. Then how does "God desires that all men be saved." fall into Calvin's paradigm? If he acts on behalf of a man then that man is saved. If God chooses not to act that man is not saved? God is not a liar yet it would seem so here by Calvin based purely on God's good pleasure.